Mathew Varghese V/S The South Indian Bank Ltd.

A.IR:327/2007

Record of proceedings on 1.11.2012 in  IA No.1527/07 (delay);  No representation for the petitioner .  Petitioner is called absent.

Ld. Counsel Shri Arun Prasad appearing on behalf of Ld. Counsel Shri Girish Kumar for the respondent bank took this tribunal through the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit and stated that the petitioner has not filed the medical certificate and that from the non filing of the medical certificate it can be inferred that the reason stated in the affidavit cannot be believed.  Ld. Counsel further stated that the reason stated by the petitioner  has not been substantiated by the petitioner and that this tribunal cannot venture to condone the delay when the petitioner himself has chosen not to file the medical certificate. 

 Ld. Counsel further stated that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for not filing this appeal within the prescribed time and that thereafter the delay has also not been explained.  Ld. Counsel further stated that this petition deserves only a dismissal as the petitioner has filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings and further to delay the recovery of public money and that this tribunal also should take a serious note of the public money involved in this case and prayed that this IA should be dismissed.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank.

It is seen that the petitioner has chosen not to be present in this tribunal to put forth his case.  A perusal of the affidavit filed along with this petition sans the medical certificate drives this tribunal to  come to the conclusion that the illness of the petitioner has not been proved and that therefore the delay has not been properly explained. 

 It is also seen that the petitioner has not repaid public money borrowed by him. 

Therefore for the reason that the delay has not been properly explained and  for the reason that public money has to be recovered this IA is dismissed.

The above Order was passed by the Hon''ble Chair Person of DRAT ,Chennai on 1 st  Nov 2012

Sri.G.Raja Rao V/S Corporation Bank

A.IR:943/2010

Record of proceedings on 6.11.2012 in IA No.1904/2010(delay): No representation for the petitioner. Petitioner is called absent.  Ld. Counsel Shri A. Periasamy appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that this Tribunal should dismiss this appeal as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dt 28.8.2012 passed in WP Nos. 13456/2012, 8381/2012 and 12970/2012 as condonation of delay does not arise in  cases of  appeals filed under Sec.18 of the SARFAESI Act..

  Hence this IA is dismissed in obedience to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in WP Nos.13456/2012, 8381/2012 and 12970/2012.

The above Order was passed by the Hon''ble Chair Person of DRAT ,Chennai on 6th Nov 2012

M/s.S.L.T.Farms (P) ltd & anr V/S IOB

A.IR:236/2010

Record of proceedings on 7.11.2012 in IA No.586/2010 (delay):  No representation for the petitioners.  Petitioners are called absent.    

Ld. Counsel Shri Benjamin George appearing on behalf of the respondent bank drew the attention of this Tribunal to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in WP Nos. 13456/2012, 8381/2012 and 12970/2012  and stated that in obedience to the above said order this Tribunal should dismiss this IA as condonation of delay does not arise in  cases of  appeals filed under Sec.18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank.

This IA is dismissed in obedience to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras passed in WP Nos. 13456/2012, 8381/2012 and 12970/2012.

The above Order was passed by the Hon''ble Chair Person of DRAT ,Chennai on 7 th Nov 2012

Vijaya Bank V/S Mr.M.Nagaraj

R.A(S.A):122/2010

Record of proceedings on 7.11.2012 in IA No.1143/2011 (set aside petition);  Norepresentation for the petitioner.  Petitioner is called absent.

Ld. Counsel Shri Om Prakash appearing on behalf of the respondent bank drew the attention of this tribunal to the fact that orders have already been passed in this matter and stated that the question of setting aside of  the order of this tribunal by this very same tribunal does not arise at all more particularly when the petitioner has chosen not to be present and pursue his case.  

Ld. Counsel further stated that the appeal was allowed on 15.9.2011 and that this tribunal should not keep this IA pending and should dismiss the same as the petitioner has chosen not to be present and urge his case for setting aside the order passed by this tribunal more particularly when the petition has been adjourned on 9.8.2012 to today at the behest of the petitioner.  

 Ld. Counsel emphasized the fact that this tribunal cannot set aside the final order and that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before a higher forum and submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable and that the same may be dismissed as not maintainable.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank.

This petition is dismissed as the same is not maintainable.

The above Order was passed by the Hon''ble Chair Person of DRAT ,Chennai on7th Nov 2012